>> from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. charlie: we begin with politics. the state department inspector general criticized hillary clinton's e-mail practices. they said she violated government policies using a government account for official business. the news comes as clinton faces renewed personal attacks from donald trump and a primary fight with bernie sanders. joining me is a political correspondent for the washington

post. mark halperin. let me again with you. and hows the report say damaging is it for hillary clinton? : the report says she violated state department e-mail practices in a couple of regards. she failed to get approval for this system, private e-mail system ahead of time. int approval would not have granted had the state department officials known all of the ramifications because of security concerns. it also said state department dated handling of e-mail back to previous secretaries of state. that is something the clinton campaign is relying on in its defense. it makes clear, throughout and

83 page report, and i think athing is not too harsh a term, hillary clinton was by far the worst offender. it also says she refused to sit for an interview. charlie: with the inspector general. so did her aides? nne: exactly. other secretaries of state either set for an interview or cooperated. she did not. you also ask how damaging this is. it is quite damaging in that one of her chief defenses on this whole e-mail think is when all be said and done, it would proved, she has said, she never willfully did anything wrong and she was not trying to hide or avoid anything.

this report strongly suggests the system she set up was set up deliberately if not to go around state department rules and to certainly accommodate her in a request that wouldn't have been granted otherwise. charlie: how damaging? mark: a lot of what this does is confirm what we already knew. she did things that were clearly not in the public interest, wrong and selfish, i think. sloppy. the heart of that is using private e-mail, a personal server, to conduct official government is this where the record-keeping was lax. there are couple of things that were damaging. the failure to cooperate is something donald trump will make a big deal of and rightfully so. if the explanation is the secretary did not cooperate because they are under potential

investigation, that is standard but they need to explain why they didn't cooperate. there are suggestions she didn't -- she wasn't forthcoming about getting approval. she one of the comedians of personal e-mail, the department should have signed off on it. steps should have been taken to make sure the system wasn't hacked. there is an account of the server being undercounted -- under salt i somebody and saying, don't send her sensitive material. you cannot get a secretary -- theate account and not have full support of the department. her critics will say, this was cavalier. is this the worst thing ever? ishii a good person who did a bad thing? this is not the worst thing ever done.

cathing is not too strong a word. charlie: plays into the hands of previous discussions. mark: her opponent calls her crooked hillary -- hillary. the people around her should not have allowed her to do it. charlie: she didn't ask for permission because she knew it would be denied. john: they certainly suggest that. about the ark of the story which is more than a year old, one of the things the clinton people and secretary clinton said was, this is not unusual. there have been many cabinet secretaries who have had personal e-mail accounts. that was always bogus. there have been other secretaries with personal e-mails. did whichone what she

was to set up a home server and direct all of her official business to run through that server. that was unprecedented to. this isn't about having a personal e-mail account, this is a whole system off-line. like the official ruling of the state department that said, this was unprecedented and outside the bounds of what we would consider proper behavior. roque our rules, the administration rules. was undertaken in a way that was designed to not have people know about it in the sense people who would challenge her. there is a thing that talks about two members of the state department staff raising the question this might be a problem. being told by people within the department that this has been subdued by review and has been approved. they were told, don't worry about your concerns.

this has been submitted for review and been approved. please back away. there is a story to be told and there will be more reporting as we figure out the details. that suggests those who raise concerns with it, of whom there were some, relied to. to.ere lied that raises interesting questions about the effort to conceal it. attend as though it were approved for those who had concerns that turned out to be justified. charlie: do we assume the system could have easily been compromised and might have? e: there have been considerations or concerns from the start that adequate security considerations weren't taken or could not be verified after the fact to have been taken.

because, as john and mark point out, it was set up separately and in parallel with the state department systems that come with all of that security architecture, all the stuff that goes around it. conductingat she was regular business on a system not set up under the state department was suspect from the start. that is what the fbi investigation is about. this was these the department inspector general which is looking at procedures. the fbi is looking at were government secrets compromised? there were these two shoes to drop in the e-mail issue before presumably the election. maybe before the democratic convention in july. now we have one. the other is still to come. charlie: we are looking for in a

president judgment. this reflects on judgment. from the start, hillary clinton had said, i never did anything wrong. i never meant to do anything wrong. her explanation of what actually happened has changed a bit over time. i never did anything wrong. i never knowingly sent classified information and so forth has not changed. , and wewhat has changed will look to see whether she makes further changes from here, is she has always claimed this was allowed. i didn't do anything the state department wasn't letting me do. this has the state department wouldn't have let you do it if they had known about it. that does speak to judgment. i think in some ways she will have to address that. mark: i have been clear, i think

what she did was irresponsible. let's put this in the context of other judgments. it is not the biggest decision she has ever made. urn out probably not t to be criminal. let's wait and see what we learn about the facts. charlie: she did not seek permission because she knew it was going to be turned down? anne: one of the working theories has always been, she knew doing it through the ordinary means, having a regular e-mail address, would subject her to open records law and requests. for someone who has been through as many congressional lawsuitstions, outside and media inquiries as she, the theory goes, she was saying from the start, let's design a system

that will shield me from that. doing the same. we don't know that to be true at this point but that has been one of the theories from the start. it appears the what the state department inspector general was looking at as a possibility here. john: something about the politics, you have donald trump who has christened hillary clinton crooked hillary. there is an amount of exaggeration, hyperbole. what many people who would say you're not arson is, this is another example of a pattern that has been true of oath clinton's. they believe they can and do play by their own rules. standard rules do not apply to them. they believe they are virtuous and maybe even uniquely virtuous, they are allowed to cut corners here and there. the normal rules do not apply. that is not crooked hillary but

those things rhyme. trump makes this argument in an exaggerated way. even from people who don't hate hillary and are not partisan, ooked hillary and their something that echoes with, they play by their own rules. in this case, i don't think it is crooked. i doubt there is going to be a criminal charge that comes out against her. they play by their own rules. argument anderful narrative, a framing device that trump is going to adopt. charlie: is there are way she could have lessened the impact? anne: they have reacted after , from myand not seemed perspective, to try to get out in front of it reactively.

she hasn't done big interviews ahead of revelations. maybe they could have done some of that. maybe they didn't know exactly what the scope of this report would be until quite recently. certainly they would have gotten a copy before it was released publicly, which is supposed to be tomorrow. news organizations got it today. that says the campaign would have had it a couple of days ahead of now. she is in california campaigning, doing a regular course of political business this week. saidampaign hasn't so far they expect to deviate from that path. admitted itready was a mistake. she said it was a mistake in trouble for

it. charlie: and now for disclosure. mark: i don't think there is much else in here she would have been inclined to admit to. they are hoping, everybody does it. the state department has that record keeping. let's move on and talk about how we can warm record keeping. possible, if the investigation doesn't go i'm not sure she suffers substantially more damage long-term. you although this better than i do. if the questions go to the heart , that is the worst thing that can happen. mark: part of the narrative is

people who ate and abet their narrative of we can do things differently. if we were state department aides and the secretary said, i'm going to use a private e-mail system and not going to do careful record-keeping and i am going to take the records with me, we all would have said, no. charlie: i know you have to go. would you agree with that point? clearly, after the fact it looks like she got bad advice here. what is still yet to be known is whether that was because of aids around her, or she wanted it to come out a certain way. maybe some fundamental misunderstanding of what she was supposed to do at the outset. some of those questions may be answered in the fbi inquiry.

i also wanted to make one very quick point. remember when the e-mail ring first blew up more than a year ago, donald trump was not a for sure political force on the republican side. this issue still damaged her trustworthiness ratings. this has been a problem and question from the start. absent donald trump. charlie: a couple of questions before you guys go. what do you expect her to say now? here is what someone said. while opponents are sure to misrepresent this report, in howity, the documents show consistent her practices were with other secretaries and senior officials who also used personal e-mail. is that true?

mark: there are differences. one, it was a different age. the reliance on e-mail was nothing like what it was. second, as john said, it was a private server. it was not -- i believe secretary powell used aol. charlie: did he use it for official business? i don't think you used any government e-mail to me the third thing is, she is running for president. john: yeah. withnk they will try to, the statement is and what they will say is basically that. they will try to push through and make the points mark made before. the report has a lot of leg which about how screwed up the record-keeping is. they will seize on the things

that are favorable to them and downplay those that are not. she is it is the case, likely to go and be interviewed by the f yard. when that happens -- by the fbi. she has offered to do that. when she goes and does that, unless it is done under the cloak of secrecy, that is going to be a circus. when she goes and sits with them. that is the main event still here. there i politically is on the prize. if there is no criminal charge and no kernel charges, they will be able to stand up and say, this is all just government e-mail gibberish. don't worry about this. i will say, again, add this one little thing. hillary clinton has this big task ahead of her between now and the convention. which is to unify the democratic party. trump doing donald

a successful job unifying a fractured party. she is not the head of the unified party. there are millions of sanders voters who are out there who need to be brought in. all of those voters are suspicious. the job she faces in terms of getting those people into her tent and getting them behind her is complicated not just by bernie sanders but issues like this. for a lot of your voters who , they hear corrupt this, too. they live in this world where this is going to be a big news story. doesn't help her with that cause any more than with taking on trump. : it gives trump the ability to talk about this with the backing of barack obama's inspector general it has to be put in proportion to read is not

the worst thing anyone has done but it shows bad judgment. it shows she was supported by people who helped her engage in something she shouldn't have done. she has been too cavalier about it. admitver wants to tokness, error, a failure exercise judgment because she knows she will be attacked more and more. the more she reveals, the more she will be attacked. this will be a problem for her for the foreseeable future. to have youan honor here. back in a moment, julian barnes joins

charlie: julian barnes is here. a critic has said of his writing, if there is a single theme, it is the elusiveness of truth read the subjectivity of memory. the relativity of all knowledge. he is the winner of the booker prize. his new novel is called "the noise of time." it is a fictionalized account of composer shostakovich's life under stalin. great to see you. let's talk about serious stuff.

you grew up in leicester. what does it mean to you? julian: my football club, soccer as you call it, after 65 years of support finally won the premiership. it is bigger than that. it has various sort of comic sidebars to it. a lot of festivity has been going on in leicester. twoas been famous for things. the first is the bones of king rechard the third we discovered under a municipal carpark. the second is the city won the premiership to read there are going to be lots of oaks about this sporting event. -- premiership.

there are going to be lots of books about this event. the pointne book from of view of richard the third. charlie: you are talking to yourself. i have not always been a supporter. there was a time before i could read our new how to tune the wireless. from the moment i became i havegly sentient, been a fox. i did initially support a second team. from the grittier end of glasgow. infant minduse my believed they were called patrick thistle and my middle name is patrick.

40, of course i still instinctively checked the results in my sunday newspaper. iide from this dalliance, have been entirely monogamous. julian: i think that is part of most fan's lives. you get inducted to supporting a team at a young age. i simply don't understand people x this, i am supporting season but i'm thinking of supporting y next season. i think the most important thing about a fan is the suffering and loss and pain. i was think about supporting leicester city, it is a good way to support england because they don't often when. -- win. charlie: you know what they say about the chicago cubs here. you know the story of the former editor of the economist and now of bloomberg.

for 30 years late on a big bet. on leicester city. 30 years, every time, he that's whatever. -- he bets whatever. this year, he didn't. it would have returned like $100,000. julian: the odds were 5000 to one. when the team was having a bit of a walpole, the bookmakers said, if they were to win it, you get 10,000 pounds. how about 4000 pounds now? a lot of people took that. some people stuck it out to the end and got the big payoff. ,"arlie: "the noise of time shostakovich.

a man who suffered more. anyan: probably more than composer in western art did he suffer the presence of power in his life. charlie: you tell the story of sleeping by the elevator. standing by the elevator. in fear that the secret police would come for him and he didn't want his family to know. julian: he had a wife and tiny girl baby at the time. wouldould have known he have been taken away but he didn't want the door broken down. he didn't want them thumping into the apartment. who knows, they might have taken his daughter away. political sinners often had their children reeducated given a false name and put in an orphanage. he had this terror that his hishter would never know

father had composed a note of music. i am telling the story of the collision of art and power. who wins and two loses. also, i hope, who wins in the long-term. in the long-term, the artist as long as he has not been killed wins out. we remember the name of mozart. we don't remember who the archduke of whatever was at the time. all those patrons of beethoven's. charlie: what is the level of the humiliation of shostakovich? julian: it comes in different ways and forms. it is very sapping. undere have to remember, the soviet union, all art was controlled to the tiniest degree by the state. if you wear a composer, you manuscripten buy

paper unless you were a member of the union of composers. your music had to be vetted by a committee of musical bureaucrats. if it didn't pass, you didn't get paid. there was a daily petty interference with what you wrote. and then of course, when the higher echelons got interested, anything could happen to you. successful opera, lady macbeth, was a world hit in 1935. it premiered at the met, it played in cleveland, south america. got interested and went to see it. point, his life changed. he was always somewhat in danger until stalin died. charlie: but after stalin heard the music, he allowed him to

travel. julian: within the soviet union. poster boy of soviet music. his first sympathy came out when he was 19. it was premiered around the world. they knew they had talent there. the tell it could just be let to go its own way. it had to be directed. if properly directed, he could write real soviet music. they didn't think he should write operas. they thought he should write film music and he did write a lot of film music. charlie: did things come t -- did things change when khrushchev came to power? julian: you are likely to get killed and people came back from

the labor camps. power became vegetarian. instead of being man eating tigers. different sorts of pressure. they wanted to corral you into their way of thinking and they wanted you to represent them. charlie: did he have to denounce stravinsky? julian: he did denounce stravinsky. he was given speeches to read. if you got this long speech to read, and said, i will read the first page to read he read the first page and set down. he found himself denouncing himself, denouncing prokofiev and strip ca stravinsky. stravinsky in exile in california.

m shostakovich that was the greatest composer of the 20th century. here he was having to denounce him. charlie: did you decide in your mind, i want to explore the collision of power and art? or did you say i want to look at shostakovich's life and see what it means? julian: both. the novelist picks up where the biographer and historian have to stop. further into you the person, to their heart. that is what we do. charlie: did you feel any pressure after the booker prize to produce something as good or better? i was: no, i didn't read lucky it to win the prize when i

was in my 60's. had i won in my 30's, it might have put more pressure. i have written 20 books. i know what i am and what i do. charlie: and you know your audience. i don't. do and it is nice different books find different readers. some books work in some places and others in other places. i tend not to write the same sort of book. though it shares themes, as you said, of memory and truth. it is a very different locale from the book that won the book of prize. ooker price. charlie: somber, poignant. this elegantly composed fictionalized meditation offers a fresh glance on a musical andus's collisions collisions with power.

julian: thank you for reading that. charlie: they said it. i didn't make it up. the idea is we can hardly imagine what it is like. the sacrifices this great musician had to make. julian: i think that is certainly true. is too easy to say, i might have done differently in defense of my art. julian: that is one of the themes. it is easy when we look at a different regime in a different time to say, he should have done this or that. different.have been behaveimagine we would b better if our countries were invaded. we haven't been invaded for a long time in our countries. tyranny, think under

we would suddenly become heroes. the only part of the united kingdom that has been invaded in recent times is the channel islands in the second world war. behaved exactly as everyone it in the continent. they collaborated. some were brave and some were not. we are likely to be as brave or cowardly as anyone else. the additional point, if you are living under a regime like stalin, it is easy to say he should have been a hero. if you did that, you are also condemning your entire family and friends and associates to death camps. unless you want to do be dead and you wanted your family to be taken away, you had to collude. charlie: heroes. who are they for you?

whose life and work have been most meaningful in your own sense of your life? julian: well, -- when my great heroes is pflueger. he said, no monsters, no heroes. in modern life, and this grade writeryour edith wharton agreed with. it is the days of monsters and haves and gods who disappeared. the monsters came back in the 20th century and we cannot live without monsters, unfortunately. i think my heroes, some of them would be literary and artistic read somewhat occasionally be political and military. charlie: shostakovich? julian: he was a hero because he is also a coward. it is a paradox. -- hee: he was a hero

recognized his cowardice? julian: i wouldn't condemn and for a moment. to condemn it you would have to think you were morally superior. i don't think anyone should claim that. the other point he makes, ironically, courage is easy. you just have to do the one thing. whereas being a coward is a lifetime commitment to read in a way, being a coward requires a sort of courage. charlie: the book is called "the noise of time." back in a moment. ♪

charlie: jessica lange is here. she is a two time offer recipient -- oscar recipient. " americanaise from horror story." of eugenein a revival o'neill's classic drama "long day's journey into night." herrole has earned lange first tony nomination. after 11 years, you go back to broadway.

jessica: yeah. no, i mean there are certain though you understand it is going to be exhausting. physically overwhelming and everything. it is that thing of, as an actor, you just want the chance to play that part. charlie: why is mary that kind of part? jessica: i played this part in london 16 years ago. i have always wanted to revisit it. it iss point in my life, the greatest part i could possibly play. i think it is one of the best roles in american drama. does is it offers you like everything as an actor you want to do. it is physical, it is emotional.

from a-z.everything charlie: tell us who mary is. jessica: she is married to an actor. this is all based closely on eugene o'neill's family, his other and brother and himself. addicted to morphine and in reality, his mother was addicted for 25 years which is a long time to his sustain a habit like that. this is one summer's day in tremendousand covers ground in that one day. whenie: is it fair to say you are inside a great playwright's words, it makes all the difference.

jessica: no matter how hard the play is, there is something that transports you. it is truly like, i always liken it to when you step out on stage, it is like stepping onto a fast-moving train. it thathis power behind carries you along and builds. thingrds, that is the getting lost in the poetry of this man's genius. charlie: you are talking about four hours. that is incredible. jessica: sometimes i have to admit, i am out there on stage and i look over and think, are we still here? it any otherve way. i love being on stage. it is a wonderful production.

it is the first time in new york where i have felt cradled in this terrific production. thisie: cradled in terrific production. twoica: sometimes, my other for raise in theater were successful nor did i feel they were realized. this is wonderful. we had a tremendous director who really understood what this play was about and how to keep it moving. i am on stage with some of the best actors i have ever worked with in my life. there is that wonderful thing that happens when you are on stage, and for a moment you begin to drift. , i look ate to do is gabriel and he is looking at me.

suddenly, it is all there and again. it is marvelous. that is what is magical. when theater works, i don't think there's anything in the world like it. workse: you know why this when the others did not work as well in your mind? plays i the other two did, one was streetcar named desire and the other was "glass menagerie." as we know, the play's work. the productions were not right. for whatever reasons. you could feel it. it wasn't well directed or it i never fault actors because we are all just there, trying to find our way through the forest. they just didn't come together.

charlie: you were also working, and i did a long interview with him, lewis c key. ck.ouis jessica: he is so great. a little bit of eugene o'neill. fardon't have to look with any genre of theater to see where the mother load was. in the lastly plays 60 years or more. a lot of that comes from this play. he is wonderful, a wonderful writer, a wonderful director. wonderful actor. i hope i can work with him again sometime. charlie: do you hope to do

"american horror story?" jessica: i had four seasons and each year was a marvelous character. everything changed which made it interesting for me. sometimes you come to the end of something. it has had its natural -- charlie: people love you in that. love you. jessica: i know. it is funny. murphy: ryan convinced you. it was interesting. i had never met him before. out of the blue, i got a phone call from him. hadmediately, i don't know, some deep trust in what he was talking about.

i usually don't. there was some type of exchange of whatever it was, energy, even on the phone. i thought, i would like to work with this man. i find him very interesting. jessica: what else do you think about doing now? you are back on stage. you are nominated for a tony. having the best theatrical experience by far. plane for me, i think the greatest role for a woman. certain agebe of a to play it but i am. get through with this, i want time to lie in the hammock and look at the lake. listen to the birds. i can do that very easily, i do that very well. charlie: are you writing at all?

memoirs? no.ica: no, no, it is interesting. maybe it is only interesting to me. actuallyee how i could -- charlie: would simply be, these are your stories? jessica: because a lot of it is very personal. is obviouslyre there are many things i would never talk about in print. charlie: what is the biggest passion for you outside of acting? jessica: photography. i have been photographing now for probably going on 20 years. charlie: there is a story right there. a chapter. jessica: blacked in light --

black and white photography, darkroom processing and printing. now in new york city, i don't have access to a darkroom. charlie: you could get access. is it digital? jessica: no, no digital. i still have my camera and rolls of film. charlie: is it primarily portraits? landscapes? jessica: all lot has been just, i have photographed a lot in mexico over the years because there is something very accessible. basically, if i had to describe myself, it would be a street photographer. charlie: a lot of people have done it very well. absolutely. do know the work of sally mann? jessica: yes.

not well, but yes of course. charlie: she is extraordinary. photographing her family. photographing her husband in decline. jessica: i didn't see those photos. charlie: on purpose? that was justnk one area of her work i missed. charlie: are you constantly learning? is the growth of a photographer, not the technique but the eye, seeing things and finding things differently? jessica: now, when i raise my camera to take a shot, there was this thing in the back of my mind that says, you have taken that shot before. you will never print it. charlie: i have seen it before.

jessica: i have seen the contexts. there is that discernment you start to have. you don't take it, or if you do, it is just because, you know. start toe a -- you hone in more and more, whereas in the beginning, you are shooting everything that you can. you knowars go by, what is going to interest you and what you are actually going this is likell, the mystery of photography which i think is so fascinating. there is still the time when like you can shoot a roll of film and you think, i'm very curious about what i shot, those frames. and then you look at the contact sheet and say, it wasn't what i thought it was going to be. down, you will see

a shot and barely remember taking it and that is the one. it is like, what happened? happens to the photographs? to put them on exhibitions? jessica: i have had quite a few recently in museums in europe. now, i am working on a project that hopefully within the next year, i will finish. charlie: can you tell me about it? jessica: it is basically highway 61 revisited. bless you, bob dylan. charlie: i have friends who say they don't go a day in a life without listening or reading something from dylan. jessica: i could sing every lyric he ever wrote. i couldn't sing it but i could recite it.

since i first heard him back as a kid in minnesota, i just -- that was it. one of those transformative artists in my life. charlie: where did this artistic connection happened? in the womb? jessica: i don't know. i was raised in northern minnesota. we had no theater there. it wasn't like we were listening to music in the house. but i don't know. i remember as a little girl with my mother, we would watch old movies on tv. maybe the film thing came there, or else it was just purely that escapism, that thing of the imagination? but i do remember as a little

girl, like staying home from school because i wasn't well and lying on the couch and doing no any and scarlet -- melanie and scarlet. death scene. somewhere, there must have been some early germination of make-believe. charlie: some nurturing of the imagination. make-believe into the next step which was acting. charlie: "long day's journey into night" is running at the american airlines hitter until june 26. as we said, jessica has been nominated for her first tony award for best performance for leading actress in a play. jessica: thank you, lovely to see you. ♪

>> we are down to the final round of this group's presidential spelling bee. donald trump and your announcers mark halperin and john heilemann. mark: congratulations on making it this far. is there anything you would like to say before we begin the final round? >> we started off 17 people on the stage, and what the hell did i know about this stuff? mark: your word is lying. >> how would you spell that? l-y-e-n. mark: yoe